When I first saw my arresting officer, he was in the hall, waiting for our court session to begin. There were 4 cops and about 25 defendants waiting for the same courtroom. I walked right up to him and said; "I see you're wearing your name tag now! Does that thing have a velcro backing?"

Some of the people around took notice. He told me that he was only there to ask for an adjournment because his partner wasn't there, and his partner (who witnessed nothing) was the one who signed the ticket. I said; "oh, did he sign it because you didn't want me to find out your name?" He was getting visibly upset, and he told me we could only talk about the ‘drunk in public’ charge because that was what was being disputed (that was the only charge he laid).

He said that if I wanted to do something about his failure toidentify himself, I would have to file a complaint with his higher ups. I said, "I absolutely will, unless you want to APOLOGIZE." I made sure to say it nice and loud so everyone could hear. A few more heads turned as I stared him right in the eye, like I was expecting nothing less than a sobbing confession of guilt. He was pretty pissed, but managed to control himself enough to walk away without tazering me.

When it was our turn in front of the judge, he moved for adjournment, and the judge asked me how I felt about it. I told her that it would cost me more to come back to court a second time than the ticket was worth. My objection was sustained, and she told the cop he would have to present what evidence he had "today."

The cop was then asked to take the stand, and swear on the bible that he was going to tell the truth. He then proceeded to lie no less than 6 times. He said that I refused to identify myself; he said that someone else was holding the camera, that I refused to leave the park, that I reeked of alcohol, he said that my 'associate' was passed out on the ground drunk, and my behavior was "100 % improved" on that day, in comparison to the day in question. All lies, some purposely deceptive.

I was patiently waiting my turn to grill him on the stand under cross-examination. I knew I was going to force him to contradict himself and he knew it too. I could hear his voice wavering.

Unfortunately, the judge paused before it was my turn. She reviewed some text from her law books, and said she was going to dismiss the case.

The reason the case was dismissed was because, by the cop's own admission, he was unable to personally and directly establish the link between me, and my corporate (legal fiction) person.

She used the word identity often, and mentioned the precedent of a case involving someone named 'Shriver.' She told the officer where he could learn the rules that he failed to abide by, and he wrote it down. She specifically said that it was not a technicality, and that there was an important reason why she made this ruling and that he needs to understand it.

The judge picked up on something that the officer will probably never be aware of. What he pretended was 'drunk talk' was actually my careful and strategic handling of the situation to make sure I never admitted to having a 'corporate person' attached to me, which his citations can be applied to.

Here’s part of what I did: When he asked me my name, I told him “my family name is X, and my friends call me Kevin." For my birth date, I said, "I'm told it was X." Although he didn't know what I was doing, and didn't properly explain my actions on the stand, it came through in his testimony because he was so ignorant of this part of the law, that he didn't know he had to lie about it.

So, I was vindicated, and I thanked the judge for her 'thoughtful decision.' I caught up with the cop on my way out of court, and said, "So I guess it came down to identity after all, eh?"

He replied sarcastically, "well played." I picked up on his sarcasm, and I told him he was never going to get it.

He saw my son in the hall, and tried to make some sort of lame insult, starting with "It's too bad your son looks like..." but I cut him off and said "I think you need to look harder at what happened today. I am going to make sure you think long and hard about it."

Rather than retaliating how he wanted to, he walked away, and I collected my high fives.

As one would imagine, I am very happy with the result. My original goal was to teach an officer that he could not just walk all over people and make up his own rules as he went along just because he had a gun. I think that cop will think twice the next time someone questions his actions, instead of insisting that he's right because he has a uniform. I also hope I will inspire others to find the courage to question authority figures instead of blindly submitting.

If you do so, make sure you know what you’re doing, and choose the right battle. I did not, but after 8 hours in solitary and 9 months of waiting for court, I got a positive result. I guess that’s the price for justice in a police state. But we’ll change that.